Pete,
I think that would be an improvement, but I see a slightly
different tension that we probably need to deal with explicitly.
If we really want "short", e.g., fitting on one slide in big
letters, then the Note Well can be reduced to something like...
"The IETF has a collection of policies. As with a
shrink-wrap license, you are responsible for all of them
the moment you start participating or contributing, or
interacting with other participants, in any way and can
get yourself and your organization into big trouble for
violating them. An introduction to those policies and
links to the details can be found at <link>."
If it seems to be useful, one more sentence to the effect that,
if one has questions after reading through the policies,
contact... could be added, but that might (should) be in
whatever is at the end of the link anyway.
IIR, a very brief statement of that sort is where this "Note
Well" stuff started. It has gotten bloated as its mission has
crept toward explaining or enumerating the policies and the IETF
has become more policy-laden.
If we actually care about an on-screen version, a list of a
half-dozen or more links just isn't going to do it anyway. It
won't be displayed long enough to copy it down. That is
actually a reasonable guideline -- anything that requires
someone to look at material later, rather than being
read/listened to and absorbed, needs to be reduced to NTE one
link or reference or it won't be written down/ remembered.
In a way, we are going to end up with two Note Wells, one for
slide display and quick reminders (like registration forms) and
something else for posting, circulation in writing, and the
target of the reference/link in the first. I fear that is
inevitable and that we should be adapting to it rather than
pretending we can create a one-screen document that covers
everything.
john
--On Thursday, April 07, 2016 00:27 -0300 Pete Resnick
<presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> How about if we changed the description of BCP 79:
>
> BCP 79 (Patent Policy, definitions of "Participation" and
> "Contribution")
>...
> On 6 Apr 2016, at 19:37, Scott Bradner wrote:
>
>> imo - the 2nd pp is not duplicative - consider that the whole
>> current note we'll is just covering "what is a
>> contribution" and the question of what
>> "participating"" is has been a contentious issue for a
>> long time